THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
v.Ervin Gamble, Appellant.
Appeal From Horry County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-095
Submitted January 4, 2011 – Filed March 10, 2011
Jerry L. Finney and Adam L. Whitsett, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Ervin Gamble appeals his conviction of trafficking in heroin. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following:
1. We find no reversible error in the trial court's admission of evidence: State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 17, 482 S.E.2d 760, 766 (1997) (stating a general objection is insufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review); State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 411, 401 S.E.2d 168, 169 (1991) (stating an objection must be made at the earliest opportunity to preserve an issue for appellate review).
2. We likewise find no reversible error in the trial court's denial of Gamble's motion for a directed verdict: State v. Green, 350 S.C. 580, 585, 567 S.E.2d 505, 508 (Ct. App. 2002) (concluding the appropriate "vehicle for challenging the admissibility of evidence based on an alleged search and seizure violation is a motion to suppress").
3. We affirm the trial court's denial of Gamble's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict: State v. Follin, 352 S.C. 235, 258, 573 S.E.2d 812, 824 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is a civil trial motion and is improper in a criminal trial).
4. We affirm the trial court's denial of Gamble's motion for a new trial: State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 102, 654 S.E.2d 849, 855-56 (Ct. App. 2007) (finding an issue is deemed abandoned if the argument is raised in a brief, but not supported by authority).
FEW, C.J., SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.